128 Responses to The Great WDTPRS “Whaddya Call This Mass?” Run-off POLL

I voted for “extraordinary form” because that’s what I understand the motu proprio to call it, and I prefer to stick to the technical terms and vocabulary (along with “introit” rather than “gathering song”), even though “Traditional Latin Mass” is more pleasing to the tongue and the ear.

I am glad to see that none of the Latin terms are in the running . . . they sound a bit snooty.

I voted for “traditional Latin Mass/TLM” because (a) it is accurate, (b) it is understood by most readers and listeners (at least those that I am likely to encounter!), and (c) it needs no additional explanation, while “extraordinary form/use” does (i.e., it doesn’t stand on its own — “extraordinary use” of what?). Plus TLM is a handy shorthand.

The drift seems to be toward “Traditional Latin Mass.” This may be spitting into the wind, but here’s why I didn’t vote for that.

“Traditional” — I don’t want to concede that the current rite of the Mass isn’t supposed to be…traditional. I realize many who really favor the extraordinary form are very negative about the newer, ordinary form. But I believe it ill behooves us to concede this ground. Realize there are folks who oppose tradition, who want to say, “yes, keep your dusty old tradition–ick!–away from the new form of the Mass!”

But to be Catholic is to be traditional, and therefore, the term “traditional” must equally apply to both forms of the Mass. That this is not yet the case requires not movement away from “traditionalizing” the newer form of Mass, but toward that.

“Latin” — I offer a similar argument to the prior one: there are those, even bishops(!), who operate on the false notion that “old Mass equals Latin, new Mass is not-Latin.” Wrong, wrong, wrong! Both forms of the Roman Rite are the Latin Mass. It’s amazing but true that many people who should know better, think Latin is somehow an intrusion, an alien thing, in the celebration of the Mass according to the current, ordinary usage.

So I’d say, even if we called the former usage the “Traditional” Mass, I’d still balk at calling it, “Traditional Latin Mass,” because Latin belongs equally to both. This plays into the hands of those, as in my first point, who truly want to be rid of all that “old stuff.” I see no reason to help their cause.

“Tridentine” is more likely than “extraordinary use” since it’s more familiar and shorter, but I don’t like that choice because it perpetuates a really unhelpful misunderstanding — that this form of the Mass is only 500 years or so old.

So–of these choices, I vote for “extraordinary use.” But I can tell you, in my own choice of language, I tend to say, “older form of Mass,” because it’s shorter, and that usually wins, all things being equal.

It seems to me that “Traditional Latin Mass” and “Tridentine Mass” accurately specify a certain form of liturgy, whereas “Extraordinary Form” is really just a nonspecific term that is assigned to the Traditional Latin Mass by current legislation.

It is remotely conceivable that the term “Extraordinary Form” could in the future be reassigned to mean the Novus Ordo Mass or some other form of mass.

It is my opinion, therefore, that “Extraordinary Form” is an unsuitable term for specifying the Traditional Latin Mass in general.

Tridentine Mass seems to be the best choice since the vast majority of the Mass was codified by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent.
Tridentine Mass shows both accuracy and respect for an ancient mass that was codified pretty much as it is today during the Trent Council.
God bless you.

I dislike Tridentine Mass and TLM for the same reasons as Fr Fox, so I voted for extraordinary use. In fact, I find that I say older form or more ancient form about as often as I say extraordinary form.

“Tridentine” is understood by all the laics I encounter. A lot of the terms we use may seem to “date” the Mass, such as “Mass of Blessed John XXIII.” However, I see nothing wrong with denoting the Mass by the time of it’s codification by St. Pius V. I’ve been saying “Tridentine” all the years that I’ve been saying this Mass, so I will continue to do so.

BTW, practically speaking, “Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” is kind of long to put on the top of a bulletin Mass schedule. Besides, most people would not know what that means. They’d say, “Yes, but what time is the Tridentine Mass, Father?”

“Extraordinary form…” is far to clunky. I’ve already gotten tired of hearing. One has to force themselves to say it, and it never flows well in conversation, or speech.

I use the term “Tridentine” quite often, but only due to the commonality of the term. I like it for that reason; that is, everyone knows to what you are referring. I dislike the term, however, for the reasons stated above; namely, because it perpetuates the myth that this Mass was invented at Trent when in fact it predates Trent by a millennium.

So I am voting for â€˜Traditional Latin Massâ€™ and pray for the day when we no longer have to distinguish it from any â€˜non-traditionalâ€™ liturgy (due to the lack of existence of any such liturgy).

The Council of Trent pulled together all the variations occuring in the ancient mass which had been in place since before Pope St Gregory the Great,and unified the mass into one solid Rite.
This is why we should use the term Tridentine Mass.
If it had not been for the Council we would most likely be calling it one of the Classical Rites as opposed to the unity which Trent gave the Mass and the Church.
Trent exemplified the essence of the Four Marks of the Church, particularly in codifying the Tridentine Mass.
God bless you.

I agree with Fr Fox. If the ordinary form isn’t traditional, we shouldn’t be using it. “Latin” belongs to both forms.

Personally I prefer “Tridentine” because it’s one word and it’s distinctive. “Extraordinary form” is two words, one of them long, and it (incorrectly) suggests that this form is only to be used rarely.

Nonetheless, as far as I know the Holy Father has called it the “extraordinary form”, not the Tridentine or the Traditional Latin Mass or the TLM. So perhaps we should use the same terms he does.

This has been a most fascinating debate.
I’ve enjoyed everyone’s comments.
I know Father Z said there’s no reason to stick with using any one expression, but now it’s a question of choosing one name which gets the message across.

The novus ordo of Paul VI can, of course, be celebrated in Latin. Anytime. Anywhere.
The “new” Mass is just as valid as the “old” Mass.
But when we use the word “traditional”, we all know what we mean :
The Mass we always knew, the unequivocally Catholic Mass, celebrated in the same way throughout the world, the Mass of all those centuries, the Mass which has been handed
down to us :
The Traditional Latin Mass.

Cor ad Cor Loquitur writes:If the ordinary form isnâ€™t traditional, we shouldnâ€™t be using it.

You might be on to something here.

Anyway, other people can follow Alice down that rabbit hole if they like.

While the New Mass can be celebrated in Latin, that is the exception rather than the rule (something admitted by Paul VI in one of his general audiences — see http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM). So it is the vernacular and not Latin that is “the principal language of the Mass.” On the other hand, with very few exceptions (which may not even apply any more), the old Mass is always in Latin. So it is not wrong to identify the Latin Mass with the older rite.

Before 1969 there was the Mass. After 1969 we have the Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae. No matter how badly you “don’t want to concede” that something isn’t traditional has no bearing on the fact of the matter. I can refuse to concede that the Ford Escort was not the official car of the Roman Army in the 1st Century, but that won’t make it so.

To be Catholic is to be traditional, and therefore, people feel guilty about all the non-traditional innovations they uphold. So, they apply the term â€œtraditionalâ€ to things that are not. Because of this state of affairs we need to be more specific when referring to the Mass and that necessitates names like Traditional Latin Mass and my favorite: the True Mass.

After reading the comments, I started to realize that I use different terms for different audiences. Amongst family and friends, I use TLM or “Traditional Latin Mass”. But when talking to priests or other church staff, I use “Extraordinary Form” so that there isn’t a negative reaction to the term.

I also don’t think that any of the terms is perfect but for the sake of communication I prefer “Traditional Latin Mass” because everyone understands what you are talking about then. “Tridentine” links it too much with Trent, “extraordinary form” probably would be the best because it is the term that is used in the M.P., but let’s be honest, this probably will not catch on. “Traditional Latin Mass” rather than simply the “Latin Mass” also seems fitting because it allows for the point to continually be raised that the “ordinary form” in the Latin language should not be a strange concept but rather needs to be more widely understood as the typicum that it is.

For the sake of being provocative sometimes I say the “Vatican II Mass” and then raise the issue that this form of the Mass was celebrated at the Council, by Bl. John XXIII (also a zinger), and by the Fathers of Vatican II.

Bottom line though, I am anxious to see what God the Holy Ghost has in mind.

I use various terms interchangeably- everyone knowsa what I mean by ‘Tridentine Mass’ or ‘Traditional Latin Mass’, although for the sake of accuracy I prefer calling it the Gregorian Mass (or the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great, if we want it to show a relation to the Eastern Rites).

Both the ordinary and extraordinary forms are forms of the Latin Rite. “Extraordinary” describes its present relationship to the ordinary form, but for some 1400 years or so, this extraordinary form was, in fact, the ordinary form (and may one day become the ordinary form again). So, “extraordinary” describes not so much what it is, but how frequently it is used relative to the other form.

Fr. Fox hits the nail on the head with the other two choices.

My priest has explained several times that Pope St. Gregory the Great would be right “at home” saying the extraordinary form of the Mass. Though its origins are even more ancient than that, Pope St. Gregory the Great gave it (and all existing forms originating at least 200 years prior to that time) recognition. This Mass has grown organically since then–though remaining largely unaltered and, of course, the same in its essence. Might I then propose: the Mass of St. Gregory the Great?

The problem with any of these terms (especially the term I just made up) is that the average person on the street (and probably in the pews) wouldn’t know what any of them are–so you end up having to give a lengthy explanation most of the time. After all, when is the last time your pastor gave a homily on the history of the Mass? As WAC points out, “Tridentine” is probably the most familiar term.

We could call it–as Fr. Z does in his introductory paragraph–“Holy Mass according to the 1962 typical edition of the Missale Romanum”, which Americanized would be “Mass According to the Typcial Edition of the Roman Missal of 1962” the acronym of which is “MATER M 1962” ;-) Never mind.

I voted with what turned out to be the majority but only because I just became aware of the poll (through Off the Record on cwnews.com). My real first choice is what I have always called it—and I still think it’s best because at least in my mind it carries no ideological freight: the Mass of 1962.

I would have thought another description, that of Conciliar Latin Mass or CLM, would be most appropriate. After all the final change to the 1962 missal took place after the Council had started with Bl. John XXIII’s Nove hisce adding the name of St. Joseph to the Canon. After the Council the 1965 rite was is use so CLM seems a most accurate term.

There are members of the faithful, and priests (more every year) who want to celebrate the current, “ordinary” Missal in accord with tradition and with at least some Latin. I believe the current Missal has yet to be properly celebrated outside of a few places. Done properly, it is very different from what so many rightly lament.

I want to do all I can to help that cause, and avoid doing anything that hinders it, and I presume (correctly?) that you want the same.

This may seem obscure, except I write from the perspective of a parish, where we are actively trying to do what I describe, and I cannot tell you how frequently the misperceptions I describe create problems: i.e., Tradition and Latin belong to the “old way of doing things.”

So, for my part at least, I never refer to it as either the “Traditional Latin” or “Tridentine” Mass, but generally, “older form of Mass,” or less often, “the way Mass was offered before the changes/reforms of Vatican II” or “the way Mass was offered until fairly recently.”

It is fair to say, however, that while some of us are very interested in the current Missal arriving where it needs to be, others consider the new Missal to be unsalvageable, or not worth the effort; and I suspect that which way one tends to go on that may inform some of our language about the older form v. newer form.

I prefer the term “Traditional Latin Mass” because this refers to the essence of the thing. “Extraordinary form” is just a juridical construct, which did not exist prior to 7 July, and might not exist in the future; but this form of the Mass will always be the Traditional Latin Mass.

I believe Father Fox’s objections can be overcome as follows. “Traditional” can have a number of different meanings. It may be true that the Novus Ordo is “traditional” in the sense that it can be celebrated in a way consonant with tradition, but it is not “traditional” in the primary sense, namely, that of _traditio_, of handing-on. The old form of the Mass came to us by being handed on from one generation to the next since time immemorial, with only insignificant changes at each stage; whereas the new form was substantially invented by a committee in the 1960s.

Similarly, “Latin” could refer to the language or to the rite. I use the term “Latin Mass” primarily to mean “Mass of the Latin Rite”, a.k.a. Roman Rite, not just “Mass in the Latin language”. For example, the Ambrosian Mass is in Latin, but it is not _the_ Latin Mass.

So, both the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass could be called “Latin”; and both the Tridentine Mass and, say, the Byzantine Liturgy or the Ambrosian Mass, could be called “Traditional”, but there is only one Traditional Latin Mass.

I went with ‘Traditional Latin Mass’ and the handy shorthand ‘TLM’ since it seems to me to be the best blend of accuracy and familiarity. Besides, I’m not one who has a negative reaction to the word “Tradition” (especially upper-case ‘T’). To me “tradition” (lower case) at least implies organic growth with no ruptures and breaks. Therefore, even if it is rather different than Pope St. Gregory the Great would have known, it remains essentially the same; rather like the office of Peter itself remains the same, even though it has changed quite a bit since his time.

I think that “extraordinary use” is better. Traditional Latin Mass sounds exclusive and divisive. By saying “extraordinary use” we’re affirming the one Roman Rite while explaining that the Missal of Pius V/Bl. John XXIII is simply a more elaborate (and obviously better and more stable) version.

Forma Extraodinaria is a mouthful,so I prefer Usus Antiquior myself, since this demonstrates that in the Latin rite there are several usages, and yet they all belong to the same Ritual Family at least from the point of view of a juridical framework. Tridentine Mass has never been accurate, and I find that priests and laity that use the term whether they be from the left or right can often fall into the trap of the hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity that Pope Benedict has warned us about. Traditional Latin Mass has its own problems because there are several traditional Latin Masses that can be envisioned including the usages of the various religious families. Even on Christmas at least for Missa in Nocte and certainly on other occassions, when the Roman Canon is used and all the proper chants are employed even in the new rite how can that not also be considered a Traditional Latin Mass? Therefore were I to choose something for the runoff it would have to be forma extraordinaria since that term has juridical meaning though personally I prefer usus antiquior.

“The true Mass” is objectionable because it implies that the N.O. (however deficient in numerous ways) is not “true”–not “valid.” “Tridentine” was fine as long as the old Missal was, in practice, in eclipse. But now the old Mass is again fully a part of the Church’s life, no shadows, no skulking, D.G.! I find myself saying “Mass according to the Missal of 1962,” believe it or not. In parish bulletins, it would be convenient to indicate which Missal will be used simply by printing the numerals “62” or “69” after the time: e.g., 9:00AM (62)…Blessedly free of emotional overtones, recriminations, or implied value judgments.

Picture yourself talking to a fellow Catholic at work who is not terribly knowledgeable about the history of the Mass or of the liturgical changes. You want to tell him about the Mass you attended on Sunday.

Do you call it the extraordinary form (or use)?

Do you call it the usus antiquior?

If someone told me he was going to the forma extraordinaria or the usus antiquior or the vetus ordo, and I weren’t familiar with those terms from blogdom, I would assume he was talking about some kind of conventicle of Latin scholars, not the Mass.

I think that it is only gracious to consider the reasons why people attached to this form are attached to it, and to choose the nomenclature accordingly.

I don’t know anyone who attends this Mass precisely because it is extraordinary; most want it to be ordinary.

I don’t know anyone who attends this Mass precisely because its Missal was issued in 1962, or by John XXIII; most would prefer an earlier Missal, were one available.

There may be some who attend it precisely because it is Tridentine (those who quote Quo Primum all the time), but many (myself included) are not particularly fond of the Spirit of Trent and the damage it did to the traditional chant melodies, iconography, sanctoral legends, sequences, local customs, et cetera.

But we all love it because it is traditional, because it is Latin, and because it is the Mass. Choosing a different name that has little to do with the actual motivation for loving this Mass seems a little patronizing – like telling people what they ought to think about it, rather than why they do.

With all due respect to our Holy Father, the Missal of
1962 probably should be called the “Ordinary Form”,
due to its antiquity. At 40 yrs old, the Novus Ordo
is still young. It is more properly the “experimental”
version and thus, the “Extraordinary Form”.

Just as we have been given a “New Order” (NO), I think we should have the “Traditional Order” (TO). Nevertheless, we should have long ago made appropriate changes, such as: Use of the vernacular for the Gospel and “Epistle”; constrained use of the Requiems; simplified prayer at the Communion of the Faithful; no longer requiring the use of a “soto voce” during the Offertory and Canon. Under all circumstances, the Priest should face the Altar (Christ) rather than the people. And, please, cut out all the dittys and self-centered hymns. As in the past, we should have 90 percent of the Masses without singing.

Daniel: But we all love it because it is traditional, because it is Latin, and because it is the Mass. Choosing a different name that has little to do with the actual motivation for loving this Mass seems a little patronizing â€“ like telling people what they ought to think about it, rather than why they do.

If my own finger had been poised above Father Z’s “close comments button”, I’d have been tempted to hit it after your post. Lest anyone else be attempted to say it all more precisely and succinctly. I cannot do so.

Regarding your comment about St. Gregory the Great not being at home in the post-Tridentine mass, I don’t think St. John Chrysostom, St. James, or St. Basil would have been any more at home in the liturgies named after them.

But I agree with your assessment of the proposed name. It is not a Western tradition to ascribe liturgies or anaphora to saints.

I assist at the Old Mass. Or sometimes I say the Traditional Mass. This is simple and clear. The question becomes immediately obvious – “OK; you;re going to the Old Mass, so that means I’m going to some form of NEW Mass?? And if it’s not Traditional, then WHO manufactured/authorised/composed it out of the blue???” And so on…. YOu get my drift…..

With all due respect to Fr. Fox, and following Laszlo Dobszay’s argument in “The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform” (http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/dobszay-bugnini.pdf),the Traditional Latin Mass implies the unity of the Missal of 1962 with the Roman Rite, before and after Trent, while there is no danger of confusing the artificially assembled “Bugnini Liturgy” with the Roman Rite in any way.

Why can’t we just call it what HIS HOLINESS said we should in Summorum? Calling the Mass of Ages the “Tridentine Mass” is false, because the Mass was not created at Trent, merely re-affirmed. His Holiness, seeing the success that the 2 forms of the Litrugy of the Eastern Rite, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil (“extraordinary”), and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (“ordinary”), knew that the Holy Spirit wanted the formerly Two Liturgical Rites to become two FORMS under one ROMAN RITE (as you all know)…so why not just call it the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Classical Roman Liturgy, Mass of Ages, yeah they’re nice, but when you start getting into “Traditional” Mass…that’s just as bad as the Church Liberals! We must be Orthodox, not conservative (and especially not liberal!), and adopt the Holy Father’s words as our own.

I originally voted for “traditional Mass” which I think is the opposite of what I would call the Novus Ordo which would be â€œcontemporary Massâ€. This is something like what you see Protestants do, â€œtraditional serviceâ€ or â€œcontemporary serviceâ€. I think it gets the point across effectively either one word or the other. Also, I like to point out to people that the â€œtraditional Massâ€ which was prayed from 1570 to 1970 had the last 5 years which were to varying degrees in the vernacular. These are the â€œso calledâ€ transitional Missals of 1965 ane 1967. I realize these transitional missals werenâ€™t typical editions like the 1962. But, this way when someone starts badmouthing Latin I say, Latin is not the issue. Because Iâ€™d rather have the â€œtradtional Massâ€ in English like it was for my First Holy Communion in 1967 than the â€œcontemporary Massâ€ in Latin. Itâ€™t the theology of the Traditional Catholic Mass that Iâ€™m concerned about, not language. But since the MP is strictly limited to the 1962 books with no revisions, then Traditional Latin Mass is the one Iâ€™ll vote for. Because there is no permission to use the vernacular in the â€œtraditional Massâ€ yet. Also, Tridentine has often been associated with the word â€œRiteâ€. With the Holy Father insisting on only one â€œRoman Riteâ€ I think the use of Tridentine should be avoided. Lastly, I think that the ordinary vs extraordinary form is a legalistic term for the Holy Father to have to use in the MP, but is not something that will roll off peopleâ€™s tongues easily anytime soon.

Looks like TLM is pulling away. The reason is because *TLM does convey a real sense of the apostolic and patristic roots, as well as the true organic development of the TLM.*

The reason “extraordinary” is not good: it doesn’t make sense, and the Holy Father never insisted on giving such a beautiful liturgy such a banal and insipid name. Even if he did insist on a name, we should all think before adopting it. That’s how Catholics traditionally thought (before we had this idea of strict strict strict obedience beyond matters of faith.) I find it dismaying that people say: “Because that’s what the Pope called it!”

If one reads Summorum and the letter carefully, “extraordinary” is only used as a term of art to describe the juridical nature of the TLM, and not meant to be a new name of the TLM. Thus, he introduces the Missal in another fashion, such as “Missal of Bl. John XXIII”, before going on to describe the juridical nature as “forma extraordinaria”.

Be careful! Tradition can be very much in the eye of the beholder. The London Oratory does the Novus Ordo in Latin, ad apsidam and with a first and second deacon. No doubt some think of it as a traditional Latin Mass. I have seen much the same but without the two deacons. Then there is the Dominican Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Carthusian Rite and so on. On the New liturgical Movement an argument (with pictures) was made for a revival of the Sarum Rite which was a glorious Rite which Quo Primum would have kept but Elizabeth I suppressed. These are all Traditional Latin Rites. The term is popular among many but too imprecise.

I am reminded of a college which added a new Quadrangle to their buildings. They were prudent enough to know that everyone would use a short cut across the lawn so they saw the need for a sidewalk to spare the grass. But where would everyone go? What if they put down a sidewalk and everyone went in other directions?

Then a wise man said, Why not simply grass over the entire Quad and then watch? The students will beat their own path and then we can pave the beaten path. It was a successful manouevre.

When the Pian Holy Week reforms came out in the mid 50’s the Mass of the Presanctified was re-named “Actio Liturgica.” Fine in Latin perhaps but it was a bewidered congreation who heard the priest in our church announce on Palm Sundy that on Good Friday at 3:00PM there would be a “Liturgical Action.” Not to worry! In a relatively short time it grew to be called the Good Friday Liturgy. Another “beaten path”.

Father Z, I’m afraid this time you’re the culprit. The Indult has been in effect for only two weeks and already you have to nail down a name. I suggest that you try doing what Bugninni could NEVER do which is, “Let it rest!” I’m comfortable with the “Older Use” and the “Newer Use” but by next week I might have changed my mind. It’s too soon! Let it rest!

I chose Extraordinary form/use. I think we need to look to where the Pope is trying to go with this. He wants the divisions healed and the two forms to bring their particular gifts to each other. (For example, perhaps, the increased variety of readings from the Ordinary form and the reverence and sense of worship from the Extraordinary form.) By separating the forms by time or tradition, there is less chance of them eventually standing side by side, against the world, giving true worship to God. Ordinary and Extraordinary link the forms rather than pitting them against each other.

True, the word extraordinary needs explaining but I think it is worthwhile to do so, even necessary. Otherwise we are going to be stuck with “Eucharistic Ministers” instead of the proper Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. The Church uses the word extraordinary in a very specific, but definitely “non-ordinary” way. Educate those who don’t understand the term; people are smart enough to learn.

Hello, Father Zuhlsdorfâ€”this post, along with the post on Bishop Zipfel, made two consecutive posts in Diogenesâ€™ â€œOff the Recordâ€ Blog on CWN. I donâ€™t think Iâ€™ve ever seen two simultaneous hat tips from Diogenes before. Congratulationsâ€”that must mean that not only has WDTPRS entered the major leagues (actually, that came with your â€œSummorum Pontificumâ€ coverage), but that youâ€™ve been selected for the All-Star team.

David M. O’Rourke writes:Father Z, Iâ€™m afraid this time youâ€™re the culprit. The Indult has been in effect for only two weeks and already you have to nail down a name.

It’s not an Indult. :-)

One of the reasons I like “traditional Latin Mass”/TLM is that it is one of the more popular terms for the Mass already in existence (the other being “Tridentine”). IOW, it is “traditional” to call the Mass the “traditional Latin Mass.” It’s the term that has been handed down and received, while “extraordinary form” is a novelty.

Mr. O’Rourke said: “Be careful! Tradition can be very much in the eye of the beholder.”

If “tradition” is used in the sense of bells and smells, yes, it is the eye of the beholder. But “tradition” limited to the solemnity, language, or the ad orientem position of the celebrant is superficial!

“Tradition” is the rootedness in the Apostolic and Patristic Liturgy, together with the method given us of organic development. (cf. Trent and V2). This is more or less an objective definition.

So, yes, the Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Sarum, and various Romanita Rites in existence prior to Trent and V2 are “Traditional Latin Rites” because they all were rooted in the Apostolic Liturgy and are organically derived therefrom. But the Liturgy given prominence by Trent and by the Saints (Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, etc.) is that of the Church in Rome.

The reason we call the pre-1970 Missale Traditional is because it is derived from Apostolic roots, and it has organically developed since then. (cf. Ratzinger, Gamber, Trent, V2).

The reason we don’t call the Novus Ordo Missae “Traditional” (at least not yet) is best summed up in H.H. Benedict’s words:“In my view, *a new edition* will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V and their predecessors have contributed, right from the Church’s earliest history.” -Ratzinger, Feast of the Faith

There are members of the faithful, and priests (more every year) who want to celebrate the current, â€œordinaryâ€ Missal in accord with tradition and with at least some Latin. I believe the current Missal has yet to be properly celebrated outside of a few places. Done properly, it is very different from what so many rightly lament.

I want to do all I can to help that cause, and avoid doing anything that hinders it, and I presume (correctly?) that you want the same.

This may seem obscure, except I write from the perspective of a parish, where we are actively trying to do what I describe, and I cannot tell you how frequently the misperceptions I describe create problems: i.e., Tradition and Latin belong to the â€œold way of doing things.â€

So, for my part at least, I never refer to it as either the â€œTraditional Latinâ€ or â€œTridentineâ€ Mass, but generally, â€œolder form of Mass,â€ or less often, â€œthe way Mass was offered before the changes/reforms of Vatican IIâ€ or â€œthe way Mass was offered until fairly recently.â€

It is fair to say, however, that while some of us are very interested in the current Missal arriving where it needs to be, others consider the new Missal to be unsalvageable, or not worth the effort; and I suspect that which way one tends to go on that may inform some of our language about the older form v. newer form.
Comment by Fr. Martin Fox â€”

Let me preface my comments by saying that I am not a Traditionalist. I am by education and inclination a Thomist and one who thinks that Latin should be the liturgical language of the Church. Nor am I a conservative, i.e., one who thinks that we need only to refine the status quo and wait for better times (cf JPII).

Kudos for your efforts to improve the liturgy in your parish. Pastors seem to be caught in the middle these days, leaving one group or another dissatisfied. I realize you are having to deal with the fact that for many years liberalism in parishes has encouraged the laity to play priest on Sundays. To me this has encroached on the status of the priest–one man complained to me that he is no longer permitted to clear the chalice after mass.

The only answer I know of is simply “sentire cum Ecclesia”, which is more complex and difficult than it sounds. And I think it is also helpful to point out to those who inveigh against the “old way of doing things” that the past 40 years have largely been a pastoral flop.

There are certain flaws in the Novus Ordo, some not intrinsic to it but rather a matter of custom.

EXTRINSIC (not necessary to change to the Missal).
1. Versus Populum. For years I have been telling anyone willing to listen that the sine qua non of any liturgical reform is to get the picnic table out of the sanctuary. The reason is that it undermines the priest as a mediator between God and man, the one who enters the sanctuary to offer the sacrifice. Instead it positions him, a la Protestantism, as primarily the prayer leader.

2. Latin. See Veterum Sapientia. To me the only place for the vernacular is with the readings at a parochial mass.

INTRINSIC (need a change to the Missal)
1. The very brief, ambivalent–and thus unsatisfactory–offertory.

2. The 2d EP, AKA instant consecration.

3. The Readings. There are obvious advantages to the consecutive readings because of exposure to more Scripture. On the other hand, they are seldom oriented to the feast of a Saint. Further, on Sundays they are almost almost never co-ordinated with the Breviary, excepting the antiphons for Lauds and Vespers.

4. Although the Novus Ordo Confiteor is not a disaster, I would prefer to see it expanded to more closely resemble the one found in the 1962 Missal.

I am reminded of a college which added a new Quadrangle to their buildings. They were prudent enough to know that everyone would use a short cut across the lawn so they saw the need for a sidewalk to spare the grass. But where would everyone go? What if they put down a sidewalk and everyone went in other directions?

Then a wise man said, Why not simply grass over the entire Quad and then watch? The students will beat their own path and then we can pave the beaten path. It was a successful manouevre.
Comment by David M.O’Rourke

My eight years in Rome have taught me that you have described only the first step in the process. While time is taken for watching which way the students will go, various people will be haggling over whose brother-in-law gets the contract to put down the sidewalk.

The consensus seems to be the “Traditional Latin Mass”. However, the only reason
I went with “Extraordinary Form” is because of the reference given by our Holy
Father – that is, “one Mass, two forms”.
BMP

Readers of your blog might be interested to know that the current Fall Sale at Oxford University Press includes Lewis & Short, which is currently available for $135.- instead of the usual list price of $225.- Go here: http://tinyurl.com/2y4wo2 to order it at the reduced price.

(Amusingly enough, my anti-spam word for posting this comment is “Buy a Lewis and Short”!)

It should be called simply the Mass. It is, after all, the pre-existing form and its name shouldn’t need to be retro-fitted with various modifiers to distinguish it from the more recent form. The real question is what to call the more recent form and for that modifiers are definitely required.

I now like AO for Ancient Order, or Anticus Ordo in Latin. It would give an easily distinguished abbreviation to balance out NO in parish bulletins, e.g. God forbid we use “Antiquus” for Older, which would have an unfortunate connotation in English.

I hope the terms “true mass” or “immemorial mass” are not meant to imply that the Western Liturgies of St. Ambrose (Milanese), Ss Isidore and Leander (Mozarabic), or the Eastern Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom or Ss Addai and Mari (for example) are “untrue masses” or chopped liver.

What is the Traditional (or Tridentine) Latin Mass? Pope Benedict has defined (or declared) it to be the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Why would anyone think he meant to name it the Extraordinary Form?

“But we all love it because it is traditional, because it is Latin, and because it is the Mass. Choosing a different name that has little to do with the actual motivation for loving this Mass seems a little patronizing â€“ like telling people what they ought to think about it, rather than why they do.”

“While I would rather ‘Extraordinary Form’ for its technical correctness…”

Not exactly. Look at the text again, and consider…

Let’s say I have both a younger brother and an older brother. I issue a statement saying: “Kevin is my younger brother, while Jim Bob is my older brother. Now, is everyone going to call them “Younger Brother” and “Older Brother”? No, because they have names. The papal decree made a generic reference to one particular missal (which it already gave a name, with proper nouns like one would expect) as being “ordinary,” while the other (which also already had a name) being “extraordinary.” Unlike Kevin and Jim Bob, however, the Pope could wake up tomorrow and decide to switch their ordinary versus extraordinary roles, as I believe Father Aidan Nichols has proposed might happen in “Looking at the Liturgy.”

Let’s all admit it, you can’t get enough of that word “extraordinary.” Why should “communion ministers” have all the fun?

Father Z: Now that this has been clarified, I wonder whether all those who voted for the generic description Extraordinary Form — instead of one the two names TLM or Tridentine Mass — might be allowed to change their votes. Let me emphasize that this suggestion is entirely altruistic, offered in simple charity, since I myself would not be one of those affected.

Personally, as someone who has happily boycotted the Novus Ordo since 1995 (with only one exception, for a funeral), I have come to refer to the extraordinary form as “The Mass.” The NO, in my opinion, is best referred to as “The McMass” which I think a very apt analogy: the NO is a valid Mass in much the same sense that a Big Mac is valid food, but neither is very nutritious.

Neil: I have come to refer to the extraordinary form as â€œThe Mass.â€

In 1955, not only you but everyone else simply called it The Mass. Nobody ever heard any of these tongue twisters used in ordinary conversation until after Vatican II. But one can certainly say that The Mass was as extraordinary then as it is now.

RBrown makes some interesting comments worthy of consideration on certain shortcomings of the new missal on the textual side. Personally, I would like the older offertory to come back, at least for some days (Sundays?), but the shortened form does make the basic point. I would defend the new lectionary though, and its limited integration with the breviary. It’s my understanding that the principle of the Roman Rite for so-called ordinary time is variety in expressions of prayer, rather than thematic integration. True the Novus Ordo has more integration than in the older form of mass, but to the extent it doesn’t the Novus Ordo is actually following the Roman liturgical tradition.

What exactly are y’all trying to name? The Mass? Surely not. The Mass is the Mass. The rite? Surely not. We know that the rite is Roman. What exactly then is being named? The usage? The Missal? The form? The style? The language? The edition? The year?

I think the answer is given in the question: “What should we call Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal?” Answer: Holy Mass according to the 1962 Missal.

David: â€œ[T]he NO is a valid Mass in much the same sense that a Big Mac is valid food, but neither is very nutritious.â€

So the Eucharist consecrated at a so-called â€œMcMassâ€ is not as â€œnutritious,â€ is that what youâ€™re saying?

Neil: No, that’s not what I’m saying. My point is about the deficiency of the 1970 Missal, not the Eucharist per se.
Do the math: a rite which deliberately obscures its true meaning and sacrificial character has been attended by 99.9% of Roman-rite Catholics for the past 40 years. There are now at least 3/4 of a billion lalapsed Catholics in the world; polls demonstrate that as many as 65% of those who remain do not believe in the real presence. The McMass is often used as a vehicle to promote heterodoxy and heteropraxis, and that’s what these people have been fed on. They have, in a spiritual sense, been starved.
Thus, the “nutritional deficiency” of the McMass is empirically manifest.

I refuse to call it the Latin Mass because this is not about Latin but as long as you always say ‘traditional’ in front of it, it’s the best of the three because nobody outside church circles knows what the other two mean.

This just in – the Red Sox have won the AL East for the first time since 1995, eliminating the Yankees and ending their streak of division titles at nine. Also, the Phillies have taken sole possession of first in the NL East, and are one up with two to play on the Mets, who are on the verge of completing the biggest September collapse in baseball history.

I’m strongly in support of “Extraordinary Form”, and just accepting the fact that we’re going to have to explain it for a while. It’s what we do: we’re still explaining what transubstantiation maens, and no faithful catholic is working particularly hard to give it a
new appellation, just explicate the contents. Same thing with the EF.

EF also has one less letter than TLM, but if you wanted to put in EFM, that would be fine.

First, and I think this is sufficient unto itself, because the Pope called it that. Second, because it appears as such in a Papal document and doesn’t risk any confusion since for some schismatics, TLM means something different than the 62 missal. Third, because it has the word ‘Extraordinary’ built right in: which means it should have some level of that which transcends the /de rigour/, and that is the right image to cultivate.

You are quite right of course. It is not an Indult but a Motu Proprio. An indult would be merely permissive. Among other things Summorum Pontificum states that the celebration of the EF is a right. After a long day I got to this blog at about 2:00 AM when my brain was starting to shut down for the night.

WCY said: If â€œtraditionâ€ is used in the sense of bells and smells, yes, it is the eye of the beholder. But â€œtraditionâ€ limited to the solemnity, language, or the ad orientem position of the celebrant is superficial!

â€œTraditionâ€ is the rootedness in the Apostolic and Patristic Liturgy, together with the method given us of organic development. (cf. Trent and V2). This is more or less an objective definition. end quote.

WCY makes some valid points here but we’re not talking about a liturgical tome or an official title. We’re taling about a colloquial name which will be used by a number of people on this blog. Many will use the term without much thought. And those who like other terms likely won’t use it at all. In such a context the word “traditional” shouldn’t be made to bear too much as I think WCY is making it do (valid though his definition is in the right context).

And, “Traditional Latin Mass” simply re-inforces the unfortuante empasis on the word “Latin” when describing the Older Use. The Pope certainly avoided such teminology and Father Z quite properly rails against the term when it is found in statements by various bishops.

As a matter of fact I have some trouble with the terms Extraordianry Use and Ordianry Use. Extraordinary here can mean that the circumstances witll be relatively rare when this Use is celebrated (and this is the interpretation that most of the bishops seem to take) or Extraordinary can be used to suggest that the Older Use is superlative. An ageless treasure. Personally I tend to go for the second understanding of the word. And in the short list that we are down to I still vote for “The Tridentine Rite.”

I agree that TLM places too much of the emphasis on “Latin”. Latin is important in the Church, but takes attention from “Tradition”. Maybe “Traditional Roman Mass” would serve us better.

However, using “Traditional Mass”, “Traditional Latin Mass”, etc. in the Motu Proprio would cause immediate rejection.

My sense is that the Holy Father is being conciliatory (no pun intended.. really!), and being anywhere from ambiguous to clever, so as to disarm people against the Trad Mass. So you see names such as “Missal of Bl. John XXIII” or the Missal referred to by its juridical status. One gets the sense that he is using rhetorical tools to get his point across.

Perusing through books written by the Holy Father before his Election, one notices that he does not settle on a standard name for the TLM, but describes it in the context of its organic rootedness to the early Church. Perhaps we should do the same.

So, what’s in a name? What is being described, or its juridical authority?

I have no problem calling it the “Traditional Latin Mass”, and rather than having a problem with calling specifically labelling it as Latin, I welcome it. I realise that Latin is not the issue, however, with the very poor English translations used at times in the novus ordo Mass, and the TLM only being in Latin, I certainly have no issue in emphasising on that. I still call it “Tridentine” from force of habit, though!

“Do the math: a rite which deliberately obscures its true meaning and sacrificial character…”

“Deliberately.” So the Apostolic See did this intentionally, in the person of Paul IV, who promulgated this missal. We didn’t have this form of “McMass” in the fourth century, but the Arian heresy did very well for itself, from what I’m told.

“Thus, the ‘nutritional deficiency’ of the McMass is empirically manifest.”

Perhaps, but first you’d have to do ALL the math. And it would help if we are clear in the terminology we already have, before we start making up others. And speaking of terminology, isn’t this thread about something else entirely, or is “Novus Ordo bashing” making a comeback as a bloodsport on the internet?

I voted (both times) for ‘Extraordinary Form’, first of all because it is the Holy Father’s term, but second, because I have heard a couple of bishops (one of whom happily celebrates it on occasion) refer to the ‘Extraordinary Rite’. I’m on my very own episcopal education programme.

1. Tridentine represents a specific moment in history, when the Mass was formalised and codified to address basically the same issues we confront today. This is not about fashion or snobbery, it is about the salvation of souls. One word (Tridentine), which is specific, cannot be twisted, re-interpreted or mis-translated. Another Council of Trent is highly unlikely. And to all those Latin scholars out there, what is the adjective for Vatican II?

2. ‘Extraordinary’ has different meanings in Latin than in English. I think we in the English-speaking world are perhaps too focused on our particular problems, rather than on that of the Universal Church. How does all this translate in Mandarin, Tagalog, Swahili or Spanish? Also, as we have seen in the last 40 years, what was ‘ordinary’ can, at the stroke of a pen, become almost anathema, and then, ‘extraordinary’. It is too subjective and confusing.

3. TLM is too much of a mouthful, and that is in English. In other languages it would probably be worse. And it blurs the rightful usage of the Pauline Mass in Latin for any Vatican High (or Low) Mass. What we say say now may well be critical in 1,000 years time, when another generation of liturgists are contemplating Vatican Council XIII. We need to be clear, both in our decision and in our reasoning.

This is not just an AD 2007 issue. The Church will endure as long as Man, or as God wills it. We need to place the flags now, or in 1,000 years time, ‘experts’ from Vatican XIII will rightfully say; “Well, in 2007 we had Clown Dance Masses and proto-wimminpriests ordained by proto-wimminbishops. Why don’t we try that?” To sum up – one word, one meaning, one tradition. Tridentine.

Neil: Do the math: a rite which deliberately obscures its true meaning and sacrificial characterâ€¦
David: â€œDeliberately.â€ So the Apostolic See did this intentionally, in the person of Paul IV, who promulgated this missal.?

Well it seems obvious that the sacrificial nature of the Mass was intentionally obscured in the Novus Ordo by removing almost all of the language referring to a sacrifice, an offering, a victim, etc.

And I do suspect that Pope Paul VI intentionally issued the Novus Ordo missal.

Actually, the appelation “Tridentine” is correct. There is no clearer way to describe the ritualistic form of Mass that was mandated by the Council of Trent.

Prior to the council, western Europe had a number of different liturgical rites, some which appear as the extraordinary form in their regions of origin (e.g. Ambrosian and Mozarabic). Moreover, some of these liturgical rites had multiple forms of celebration. The city of Rome was no different.

What was commonly celebrated in Roman parishes was more elaborate. What the council of Trent mandated was NOT this form but the curial form, which was comparatively simpler. The form of Mass celebrated by the Roman Curia became the standardized form mandated by Trent. Thus, there is no better way to describe the currently recoginized extraordinary form than “Tridentine.”

What is obvious is what Paul VI did. Less obvious (if at all) are his intentions. The two are not the same.

It is with the benefit of hindsight that more people come to see what some did at the time, that the official text of the reformed liturgy may lack a theological precision that is inherent in the classical, and that such imprecision could be problematic in the short term, even dangerous in the long run.

It does not follow that Paul VI deliberately wished to produce such results. That is a very serious charge to level against a Successor to Peter. His prudential judgment in matters subject to his authority is another matter, and even then, might best be left to the Almighty, before whom he now stands.

In the meantime, there is cause for rejoicing, and for examining more closely what the Holy Father has to tell us — not just in the decree, but in the explanatory letter. The commentaries of our priestly host that have appeared in The Wanderer these past few months, are most excellent regarding this subject matter. Would that they were online for all to read.

I’m always a little puzzled by claims the Ordinary use lacks theological depth. Yes, it has somewhat less emphasis on the Mass a sacrifice, but it still has more than some of the rites of the Catholic East. The Ordinary Use texts, read without invidious presuppositions, still clearly teach the Mass as sacrifice. Its weak point, arguably, is not that it lacks depth, but that it lacks a clear enough *focus.* The “stripped down” offertory and introduction of some of the new canons, often based mainly on Eastern patterns, means it cannot play its own distinctive role in the liturgical symphony of the Church quite as well. This special role of the Roman rite is, in fact, to stress the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, which is present, but less prominent, in the other rites. Note though, that this aspect of the Roman Rite did not appear all at once, but was gradually highlighted through the Early Medieval liturgical development.

NB. It’s rumored the Holy Father is considering suppressing all the new canons, but EP III, which is clearly the most “Roman” in theology, etc., after the old Roman Canon. If so, this would redress much of the weakness, especially if the older offertory were brought back at least for some days.

“Iâ€™m always a little puzzled by claims the Ordinary use lacks theological depth.”

So am I, which is why I used the word “precision,” instead of “depth.”

I’ll give two examples of what people mean when they refer to this idea. One is the Confiteor at the beginning of the Mass, the other the “Libera nos” of the priest following the Pater Noster. Compare the texts of both the old and the new, in whatever language. In the old, there is a hierarchy of saints mentioned, which in the new is reduced, or cut out altogether. While their absence may not be a bad thing in and of itself, their inclusion reinforces our belief in the communion of saints, and the role of the “Church Triumphant” in the greater scheme of things, whether in the liturgy, or in life. To include them is a more precise example of this part of Catholic belief. To exclude them, then…

WCY–Yes I know. I was hoping others could come up with their own entires and then we could vote. But what else would we call it but the Restoration? The Renewal? (Nah, too VII) a New Springtime? (not strong enough.) Let’s see what others can come up with.

Thank you for the clarification about what you mean by “precision.” It does help me understand what you mean. I would concede that holds in these cases as concerns the communion of saints. The reduction, though, in the list of saints in the Confiteor strikes my as quite defensible, since the medieval saints lists in the Confiteor are–according to Fr. Jungmann–highly variable, and before St. Bernard, who inserted the Blessed Mother’s name, no specific saint’s name was listed at all (i.e. therefore it would seem to be theologically less important in this context.)

Removing the saints’ list from the embolism after the “Pater Noster” was more radical since that was a very old Roman Rite tradition–and here it seems that again we have an “Easternization” of the Roman Rite. But to be fair to the Ordinary form, the new phrase “Expectantes beatam spem et adventum Salvatoris nostris Jesu Christ,” seems to be more precise as to the eschatological meaning of this part of the mass–which is present, but less explicit in the Extraordinary Form.

I voted “Tridintine Mass” but last day reading “Feast of Faith” by Ratzinger (1981) was very nice to read
the explication he does about what we would call “Tridentine Liturgy”. Page 85 said:
There is not a such thing as a Tridentine liturgy The Council of Thent did not “make” a liturgy.
Stricly speaking, there is no such a thing, either, as the Missal of Pios V. The Misaal wich appeared in 1570
by order of PIos V fiffered only in tiny details from the first printed edition of the Roman Missal of about a hundred years earlier.” The whole book is about the Liturgy and itÂ´s very profound, worthy to read!
Here in Brasil (sorry about my poor English) we donÂ´t have in portuguese yet this book, so I encourage
you who have this chance there in USA to read it, and pray about it! How we are blessed with such holly mand
as Pope and who is teaching us how to love the Church! Thank you! Julie Maria

I think it’s up to the future (not us) to give a name to our own age. At the beginning of the Middle Ages, someone didn’t say, “Hey, let’s take a poll and decide what to call this age. Maybe… the ‘Age of Faith.'”

I would say “Tridentine Mass” would be the best commonly understood terminology, but it leads to the problem that there were several revisions to the rite over the centuries (no matter what some want to believe) so “Tridentine” is actually a series of masses based on the original mass promulgated by Pius V (and he didn’t so much compose it from scratch as pick and choose from among the currently valid options to put together as more limited and standardized version).

What is actually more useful is to have parallel terms for both forms, which is why the Holy Father’s ordinary/extraordinary terminology is useful, other uses lead to strange syntax when referring to both of them simultaneously:

Old Mass/New Mass has the temporal drawback that the Old Mass was new once and the New will eventually be old as well).

Tridentine/Vatican would probably be fair if one tries to use the council which led to the mass as a reference, though I suspect that die hard fans of the extraordinary form would feel that the word “Vatican” gives it too much prestige (it is questionable if “Vatican” is the proper adjectival form, though I suspect that “Vaticanine” is a grammatical barbarism and that “Deutrovaticanie” would be have the peculiar honor of being both a more accurate and much sillier term).

“Traditional Latin Mass”/? (setting aside the historical fact that it is not “THE” Traditional Latin Mass but “A” Traditional Mass) I guess the cognate depends on your political leanings; “Traditional Vernacular Mass” might actually be a fair de facto description, but others will no doubt say (or just think) that “Modern (-ist?) Mass,” “Contemporary Mass,” “Current Mass” or “Normal Mass” are the proper cognate).

The other distinct possibility, of course, based on Benedict XVI’s ongoing statements is that we won’t have to worry about it for very long because he is getting ready to revise the extraordinary rite into an updated version which will then either be the Mass of Benedict XVI, or just complicate the nomenclature further.

Tridentine is what it’s always been called (at least what I’ve always heard). Traditional Latin Mass sounds like a sort of ‘dumbed down’ version and for some reason almost sounds less legit to me. Also sounds “old fashioned” and almost passe (which of course, it’s not) . It also sounds like “Traditionalist” , therefore making it sound like the Mass of a “faction”.

IA “extraordinary form” sounds a bit strange… though I’d go for that as a second after Tridentine.

“Tridentine Mass”, as our Holy Father said when he was a Cardinal, is a term unknown until the mid 1960’s.

The *Mass* is Traditional and Apostolic. It stretches back to the Apostles, and its heart to St. Peter.

The *Missal* may be called “Tridentine”, because Trent gave Latin priests use of the Roman Curial Missal. But the Tridentine Missal, as Ratzinger said, is almost identical to Missals printed 100 years prior and stretches back to the Early Church. “Tridentine” implies a Missal with only 400 years history, when in fact this is not true.

Also, don’t underestimate “Traditionalists”. They come in all stripes and colors, and each group of Traditionalists has its own strengths and issues. However, they have been right on certain issues and preserved a gem given us by Saints through the centuries, while the rest of the Church was persecuting them and denying certain things confirmed in Summorum Pontificum.

The Reform of the Reform, of which Summorum Pontificum plays a huge parts, depends heavily on what Traditionalists have preserved.

The Traditional Latin Mass was the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church as it organically evolved from Christ and the Apostles down through the ages until 1969. St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Joan, St. Ignatius, St. Catherine, St. John Fisher and oh so many other saints would have been at home in this Mass. How anyone could want to throw that away and substitute the Protestantized, committee-made Rite of Paul VI we have had foisted on us is beyond me. Traditional Latin Mass does the best job of explaining the immemorial Mass of the ages.

*Fr. Matt said:* *Tridentine/Vatican would probably be fair if one tries to use the council which led to the mass as a reference*, though I suspect that die hard fans of the extraordinary form would feel that the word â€œVaticanâ€ gives it too much prestige (it is questionable if â€œVaticanâ€ is the proper adjectival form, though I suspect that â€œVaticanineâ€ is a grammatical barbarism and that â€œDeutrovaticanieâ€ would be have the peculiar honor of being both a more accurate and much sillier term).

The Mass of Paul VI, though lawfully promulgated by a Holy Pontiff, is not the Vatican II Mass. It is a post-conciliar Mass, but *not the Mass the Council asked for.* It would be incorrect from the standpoint of the collective Council Fathers to call it “Vatican” or “Vaticanine” unless you were referring to the Holy See’s authority and not the Council.

When in doubt, return to the sources.

Finally, there must be *no innovations* unless the *good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them;* and care must be taken that *any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing*.

-Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium Â§ 23

The *most Vatican II compliant Mass* is probably found in the Missal of 1965, which is basically the *Missal of 1962* with some indults.

So, when we say “the Mass of Vatican II”, we really mean to say “the Traditional Mass given by the Roman Popes and Saints through 2000 years and reaffirmed by V2.”

I suggest “Tridentine Latin Mass”, simply because to use another term sort of negates the very Council which gave birth and its name to the Tridentine Latin Mass. It’s still the Missal of St. Pius V (even though John XXIII made amendments/changes to it). And 99% it’s still the Tridentine Latin Mass, product of the great Council of Trent which gave rise to the Catholic Counter-Reformation against Protestantism and which gave energy to all the tremendous works of God that began at that period (at least 30 famous religious Orders which helped restore religious life…the most well know being the Jesuits, Discalced Carmelites of St. Teresa of Avila reform, and the Oratorians, Ursulines, and Theatines.)
Not to use the name “Tridentine” consigns the great Council of Trent and its most visible creation to oblivion.
I would rather glorify a great council like that of Trent, rather than remove it’s name from it’s greatest contribution to Catholic life.

The Council of Trent didn’t “create” this Mass – it had been in use in Rome for 1000 years. All Trent did was impose the Roman Missal on the rest of the Western world. Prior to Trent there were innumerable different rites and uses of Mass in the West; after Trent there was (largely) uniformity. It is much more accurate to describe it as Traditional rather than Tridentine, since it wasn’t “invented” by any Pope or council, but developed organically over the centuries.

TLM has an absolute majority of votes with one day left – pretty conclusive in a three-way runoff.

I think we’re doing this b/c the Church — which could preempt us and dictate a choice — has (so far) permitted all of these candidates, so we’re just picking a favorite within a field of permitted alternatives.

My only difficulty about “Traditional Latin Mass” is that it may tend to suggest that tradition is a free-standing source of truth, apart from the Church. This is, may I respectfully suggest, one of the errores Graecorum, and part of the reason for the splits among the proudly “autocephalous” Eastern Orthodox [sic] churches.

Obviously most people who prefer “TLM” don’t make that mistake, but, just as obviously, a few do.

I vote for “Tridentine.” I understand that the Council of Trent didn’t invent this liturgy, but it was such a great council, I’m happy to give it credit anyway. Besides, the standard speech that starts “You know, it’s actually much older than the Council of Trent…” is a great ice-breaker with newbies.

I prefer “the extraordinary Mass in Latin” or EML. I’m just doing it as a conversation piece, but the conversations have been good.

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

BACK TO SCHOOL SHOPPING? Please, come here first!

Enter Amazon through my search box and I will get a small percentage of what you spend. (Pssst - Can't see the search box? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)Amazon.com WidgetsPS: I added Amazon Search Boxes for the UK and for Canada at the bottom of the blog page. Copy and paste titles I mention into those boxes and - BAZINGA! - results appear as if by magic.
Kindle? HERE

“This blog is like a fusion of the Baroque ‘salon’ with its well-tuned harpsichord around which polite society gathered for entertainment and edification and, on the other hand, a Wild West “saloon” with its out-of-tune piano and swinging doors, where everyone has a gun and something to say. Nevertheless, we try to point our discussions back to what it is to be Catholic in this increasingly difficult age, to love God, and how to get to heaven.” – Fr. Z

Some words of wisdom…

The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and and limits of [papal] authority, which of course, as such, had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

“I must refute any calumnies that have originated in certain parts of the press, or from certain ultramontanist circles and Vaticanisti, and this anonymous group of false “friends” around the Holy Father who have questioned my loyalty. All my life as a priest, theologian and bishop, I’ve worked for the Kingdom of God and his Holy Church. And to present me as an enemy of the Successor of St. Peter is completely crazy and unjust.”

CLICK and say your Daily Offering!

"We as Catholics have not properly combated (the culture) because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention... What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity... Charity means speaking the truth. I have encountered it (not speaking the truth) many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence — people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not 'politically correct.' But we cannot be silent any longer."

Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee) and Norcia (beer)!

出る杭は打たれ!

Without you, there is no blog.

There is a subscription form at the bottom of this page!

Aedificantium enim unusquisque gladio erat accinctus.

- Nehemiah 4:18

"Where priest and people together face the same way, what we have is a cosmic orientation and also in interpretation of the Eucharist in terms of resurrection and trinitarian theology. Hence it is also an interpretation in terms of parousia, a theology of hope, in which every Mass is an approach to the return of Christ."

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. ... If all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians." CDF 2003

One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting.
— C. S. Lewis

Ham Radio Stuff

Fr. Z - W9FRZ - OFFQRV on: 00m 00000
Check Echolink WB0YLE-R - OFF

For contemplation…

"One of the few things in life you can be absolutely sure about is that, if Management tells you it doesn't like your Tone, you are getting something right."

"Latin is a precise, essential language. It will be abandoned, not because it is unsuitable for the new requirements of progress, but because the new men will not be suitable for it. When the age of demagogues and charlatans begins, a language like Latin will no longer be useful, and any oaf will be able to give a speech in public and talk in such a way that he will not be kicked off the stage. The secret to this will consist in the fact that, by making use of words that are general, elusive, and sound good, he will be able to speak for an hour without saying anything. With Latin, this is impossible."

- - Giovanni Guareschi

Support them with prayer and fasting.

Click for Car Magnets

Help the Sisters. They have a building project. Get great soap (gifts, etc.) while helping REAL nuns!

Some OBLIGATORY reading…

Leave Voice Mail for Fr. Z

Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.

WDTPRS

020 8133 4535

651-447-6265

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

Check out the Cardinal Newman Society feed!

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

A great hymnal…

Mystic Monk Coffee also has TEA!

Because it matters what children read…

I carry one of these super-strong rosaries in my spare mag pouch! The Swiss Guards have them too!

The Swiss Guard have these rosaries!For the story clickHERE and HERE (esp. 18:00)

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

My wish lists

Main Wishlist Kindle WishlistAudio WishlistHam Radio ListNEW

Food For Thought

“The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

For your consideration…

"One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting."

- C.S. Lewis

More food for thought:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Francis Card. George

Fr. Z’s stuff is everywhere

Please follow me on Twitter!

Help support Fr. Z’s Gospel of Life work at no cost to you. Do you need a Real Estate Agent? Calling these people is the FIRST thing you should do!

They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive."

Charles Pierre PéguyNotre Patrie, 1905

"If I ought to write the truth, I am of the mind that I ought to flee all meetings of bishops, because I have never seen any happy or satisfactory outcome to any council, nor one that has deterred evils more than it has occasioned their acceptance and growth."

St. Gregory Nazianzus
ep. 131 - AD 382

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

Reading and gift ideas!

READER DONATIONS FROM…

To set up a recurring, monthly donation via PAYPAL (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! If you prefer, I also have a clearXchange account. Do you want yet another alternative to PayPal? I have set up an account with
CONTINUE TO GIVE
Get a link to donate via CONTINUE TO GIVE using your smart phone.
SEND MESSAGE:
4827563
TO:
715-803-4772
They take a larger percent taste, but they are an alternative.

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

This catechism helped to bring Fr. Z into the Catholic Church!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

And... GO TO CONFESSION!

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

What people say…

"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."

- Kractivism

"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"

- Michael Sean Winters

"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."

- Anna Arco

“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”

- Comment

"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."

- Sam Rocha

"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."

- Comment

"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."

- Anonymous

Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD

- Comment

Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.

Support Military Chaplains!

Click to donate

Food For Thought

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Canadian Amazon Search Box

More stuff…

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.

Some options

Admin Stuff

The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the positions of any of the Catholic Church's entities with which I am involved. They are my own. Opinions expressed by commentators in the comments belong to the commentators.